• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:55
CEST 09:55
KST 16:55
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition32
StarCraft 2
General
The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada herO Talks: Poor Performance at EWC and more... Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO
Tourneys
INu's Battles#13 < ByuN vs Zoun > Tenacious Turtle Tussle SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1113 users

Philosophy and Why I Think It Matters - Page 3

Blogs > TheGloob
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 08:58 GMT
#41
I'd add that some form of philosophy is integral to the pursuit of knowledge. The problem is, you have to have extensive knowledge on the subject matter first. So in essence, the "new" philosophers are the top, top scientific minds that are operating at the limit of our understanding of reality.

So philosophy is awesome, when done by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, etc.
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prog
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom1470 Posts
July 29 2014 09:47 GMT
#42
On July 29 2014 17:58 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'd add that some form of philosophy is integral to the pursuit of knowledge. The problem is, you have to have extensive knowledge on the subject matter first. So in essence, the "new" philosophers are the top, top scientific minds that are operating at the limit of our understanding of reality.


Fun fact: This is exactly what Aristotle said 2400 years ago and what various philosophers actually do since then. There are excellent philosophers of mathematics/logic that have a good reputation in the fields of mathematics (Shapiro or Kripke, for instance), Philosophers of science that operate with historical evidence (like Hasok Chang), Philosophers that work with computational and neuroscientific approaches (Paul and Patricia Churchland, or Paul Thagard for example), Philosophers of physics that have background in physics (Simon Saunders or Richard Dawid for instance),...

For anyone with a decent background in philosophy there is no relevant gap between "old" and "new" philosophers based on knowledge of any subject matter. There were always philosophers operating with up to date tools and respect/integrate what is done in other fields. But you have to be in academic philosophy to even know these guys exist, the layman view on philosophy does not notice them.
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 10:44 GMT
#43
On July 29 2014 18:47 Prog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 17:58 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'd add that some form of philosophy is integral to the pursuit of knowledge. The problem is, you have to have extensive knowledge on the subject matter first. So in essence, the "new" philosophers are the top, top scientific minds that are operating at the limit of our understanding of reality.


Fun fact: This is exactly what Aristotle said 2400 years ago and what various philosophers actually do since then. There are excellent philosophers of mathematics/logic that have a good reputation in the fields of mathematics (Shapiro or Kripke, for instance), Philosophers of science that operate with historical evidence (like Hasok Chang), Philosophers that work with computational and neuroscientific approaches (Paul and Patricia Churchland, or Paul Thagard for example), Philosophers of physics that have background in physics (Simon Saunders or Richard Dawid for instance),...

For anyone with a decent background in philosophy there is no relevant gap between "old" and "new" philosophers based on knowledge of any subject matter. There were always philosophers operating with up to date tools and respect/integrate what is done in other fields. But you have to be in academic philosophy to even know these guys exist, the layman view on philosophy does not notice them.

I will argue that Aristotle was, by today's standards, closer to a scientist rather then philosopher. He tried his best to understand the world he was living in using the tools and methods available to him at the time, at a time where the scientific method was not established. Had he lived today, i could see him in astrophysics :p

It's nice that you brought up mathematics, because that is probably the most misunderstood subject ever. You see, mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge.

In layman's terms, mathematics can be described as a language. Like the English language, it can be used to describe real things, or complete nonsense. For example, you can say: "What is the color of pain?". A correct sentence from every point of view of the language itself, but it holds no meaning, and thus it is completely useless (unless you go in to poetry-art- but that is different because it stops describing reality or dealing with knowledge and instead it tries to please the senses)

So when mathematics is understood in that light, one can see the difference between how it is used in physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc, and how it is used by pure mathematicians. I think Lawrence K. described it best as "the language of the Univers" But without knowing the message or what it is you want to communicate, any language is useless. So it is a prerequisite of science and making advancement (and understanding for that matter) the nature of things, not science that decipher reality on it's own.

I think there is a massive gap between the old philosophy and the new, because the "old" tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time. Now, we have the scientific method that has proved successful in doing just that, so philosophy has been broken in many ways (physics, psychology, etc.). It is possible of course that there are still some things of value there, that will inevitably break away to to form a new field of science, but as of now, philosophy matters little if at all to our progression in understanding the world we live in.
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
July 29 2014 11:05 GMT
#44
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 11:21 GMT
#45
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.

It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems.

How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times.
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prog
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom1470 Posts
July 29 2014 11:23 GMT
#46
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


Furthermore, I think that any other science relies on mathematics being true. Additionally, scientists who use mathematics for whatever purpose believe that the operation they use are correct and they have reasons for that believe. Combined, this is likely enough to ascribe knowledge of mathematical operations to those scientists (they have a justified true belief about mathematical operations).


Finally, I'd like to point out that I gave you examples of philosophers who tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time from the last ~30 years. Richard Dawid, for instance (I know him personally so I am confident in my claims here), has a PhD in theoretical physics and uses his expertise in physics for philosophical work. His book was even endorsed by John Schwarz and David Gross. Something interesting that he pointed out is that there are important physical theories, especially in high-energy physics, that are not something that can be easily (if at all) argued for with traditional scientific method (the one you praised so much). String theory is the prime example for that. A decision whether we should believe string theory to be true can not be made with experiments, so we need to rely on other ways to justify a belief.
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
July 29 2014 11:40 GMT
#47
On July 29 2014 20:21 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.

It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems.

How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times.

Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway.

And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence".
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
July 29 2014 11:42 GMT
#48
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).

I think it probably originates from a proposition at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which said maths proposition were always obiously false or wrong, because maths is just a logic language. Needless to say I think it's as hilarious as his claim about having solved philosophy.
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 11:55 GMT
#49
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world.

So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding.


Furthermore, I think that any other science relies on mathematics being true. Additionally, scientists who use mathematics for whatever purpose believe that the operation they use are correct and they have reasons for that believe. Combined, this is likely enough to ascribe knowledge of mathematical operations to those scientists (they have a justified true belief about mathematical operations).

They have that "believe" because it has been tested for hundreds of years. But again i think you misunderstood. I didn't say mathematics is false, i said it can describe real things, or useless things. Scientist use it for the former, most of what is done in school for example has little real world meaning (as it doesn't describe real world phenomenon).


Finally, I'd like to point out that I gave you examples of philosophers who tried to understand the nature of things based on what was available at the time from the last ~30 years. Richard Dawid, for instance (I know him personally so I am confident in my claims here), has a PhD in theoretical physics and uses his expertise in physics for philosophical work. His book was even endorsed by John Schwarz and David Gross. Something interesting that he pointed out is that there are important physical theories, especially in high-energy physics, that are not something that can be easily (if at all) argued for with traditional scientific method (the one you praised so much).

I know there are "good" philosophers out there, that's why i usually write "most" or add in that there are "exceptions".

String theory is the prime example for that. A decision whether we should believe string theory to be true can not be made with experiments, so we need to rely on other ways to justify a belief.

String theory is far from being anywhere near ready do prove itself, that's why it is a work in progress. It is not capable of making predictions for instance. Until that day, you will "believe" in it for 2 reasons: you like it and so you choose to believe it's true (hello religion!!) or you are invested emotionally and career wise (you work on it).

It is a nice theory that demands a lot of work, but as of now, the only real progress it has made has been in mathematics (we talked about this). Until the day it can make predictions (that will be tested), it has more chance of being wrong then being right (like most ideas have always been).
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 12:04 GMT
#50
On July 29 2014 20:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:21 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.

It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems.

How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times.

Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway.

And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence".

Oh FFS it's a figure of speech!!! We might just as well meet some super advanced alien life form and have it go "Mathematics? ahahaha yeah, we tried that, but it only takes you so far.. Now here is something MUCH better to describe reality!!"

But until that day it is the best tool we have that seems to describe the natural phenomenon and we can be proud as a species to have come up with such an abstract concept that applies so well in describing reality (though not perfect)
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prog
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom1470 Posts
July 29 2014 12:20 GMT
#51
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world.

So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding.


Let's try one last thing in simple argumentative form:

(1) Mathematics only brings knowledge when applied to real world things.
(2) In real world things you will not come by a perfect circle.
(3) We have equations that are true of a perfect circle.
---
(4) We have true, but unknown equations with regard to a perfect circle. (based on 1, 2 and 3)

That seems valid, but very implausible to me. I personally think that the mistake is in (1). (1) seems just false.
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
July 29 2014 12:31 GMT
#52
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world.

So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding.

I've never seen a triangle in the real world. Please show me one. And why would you limit knowledge to physical things ?
Or from another point of view, isn't mathematics more properly the knowledge of how said language works ? Because some proposition are true and false in maths, indepently of what they describe.
I read your books when you'll read the Critic of pure reason.
On July 29 2014 21:04 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:21 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.

It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems.

How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times.

Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway.

And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence".

Oh FFS it's a figure of speech!!! We might just as well meet some super advanced alien life form and have it go "Mathematics? ahahaha yeah, we tried that, but it only takes you so far.. Now here is something MUCH better to describe reality!!"

But until that day it is the best tool we have that seems to describe the natural phenomenon and we can be proud as a species to have come up with such an abstract concept that applies so well in describing reality (though not perfect)

So now you have no answer to Wigner's question, you're just saying "hey I won't complain". Much more reasonnable already. A pity though, it's really interesting, my physics teacher was right to talk about it. Crazy how he was interested in philosophy of science though...
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 12:38 GMT
#53
On July 29 2014 21:20 Prog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world.

So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding.


Let's try one last thing in simple argumentative form:

(1) Mathematics only brings knowledge when applied to real world things.
(2) In real world things you will not come by a perfect circle.
(3) We have equations that are true of a perfect circle.
---
(4) We have true, but unknown equations with regard to a perfect circle. (based on 1, 2 and 3)

That seems valid, but very implausible to me. I personally think that the mistake is in (1). (1) seems just false.

We don't have perfect circles, but through slightly more advanced mathematics you can adjust the equations for those imperfect shapes. There are ways of determining the area for example of any shape using equations meant for regular shapes.

Tell me what knowledge does mathematics give us, when not applied to any real world phenomenon, shape, situation, etc?
It seems to me that almost by definition your (1) is true. How can you get knowledge of the real world if you don't apply/ use/ look at the real world?
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 12:54 GMT
#54
On July 29 2014 21:31 corumjhaelen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:55 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).


It seems like i wasn't clear enough so i'll try again. Mathematics, just like any other language, can "bring" knowledge when it is applied to real world things/ used to describe real world things. The geometry example you give, is mathematics applied to the real world.

So in and of itself, it's just a tool, a "language", but when applied to real world problems, it can describe them and solve them. I don't think i can make it more clear that that, and i'm afraid that i'll just have to direct to to lectures of Lawrence K. and Brian Green for a more in depth understanding.

I've never seen a triangle in the real world. Please show me one. And why would you limit knowledge to physical things ?
Or from another point of view, isn't mathematics more properly the knowledge of how said language works ? Because some proposition are true and false in maths, indepently of what they describe.
I read your books when you'll read the Critic of pure reason.
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 21:04 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:21 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
How much philosophy in a post that claims it has no value.
And the idea that mathematics doesn't bring any knowledge requires a very strange view of what knowledge is. How is Pythagoras' theorem not knowledge, I've always wondered.
Plus the idea that mathematics are the language of the universe (it brings us back to Galileo btw) seems naïve at best. Kantian view seems to me in everyway superior, but hey, you don't care about reading philosophy, unless it agrees with your world view I guess.

It is the language of the Universe because it is the only tool, or as i said "language", that can accurately describe it in detail. Pythagora used mathematics, like in all geometry, to describe and solve real world problems.

How does it bring us to Galileo and why is that view naive? It's not mine btw, it's Lawrance K., one of the most important physisits of today. But hey, better hold a 200 year old view then to keep up with the times.

Because Galileo was to my knowledge the first to formulate it "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics". So hey, you can hold to your 400 yo view if you want, I won't make that an argument against it, i'll just say that your anti Kantian argument is bullshit, but I guess you have no idea about Kant anyway.

And because it would be the strangest of miracle that the mathematics we'd developped independantly of physical problem would suddenly come up in totally unrelated area. Cf Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Declaring "well, it just so happens mathematics is the language of the universe" is nothing but blind acceptance of this "coincidence".

Oh FFS it's a figure of speech!!! We might just as well meet some super advanced alien life form and have it go "Mathematics? ahahaha yeah, we tried that, but it only takes you so far.. Now here is something MUCH better to describe reality!!"

But until that day it is the best tool we have that seems to describe the natural phenomenon and we can be proud as a species to have come up with such an abstract concept that applies so well in describing reality (though not perfect)

So now you have no answer to Wigner's question, you're just saying "hey I won't complain". Much more reasonnable already. A pity though, it's really interesting, my physics teacher was right to talk about it. Crazy how he was interested in philosophy of science though...

The quote function seems to give me problems now so i'll write in one block.

In regards to your geometry questions, i've answered already (after you posted though). You get the "ideal" scenario, then you modify and apply to the real world. Sometimes just through approximation, other times by making rather complicated equations from the original "ideal" ones. Everything has humble beginnings though so in school you are usually thought the basics. Ask an engineer about "real world" mathematics if you are interested on the subject.

We did not invent it independently of the physical world. It has been build over thousands of years starting from real world needs and going in to the abstract (not connected to anything real). And it's far from perfect but it's the best we have.

Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prog
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom1470 Posts
July 29 2014 12:56 GMT
#55
It does not matter for the argument that you can use equations for imperfect shapes. The argument just claims that if you think (1), (2) and (3) is true, you have to accept that we have true equations of a perfect circle, which are not knowledge (4). I think the conclusion (4) is implausible and believe that (2) and (3) are certainly true. You yourself just accepted (2) and I guess you also accept (3). Now you either have to accept (4) or discard (1). To accept (4) you must have a very strange notion of knowledge, that I cannot grasp at all.

I believe that (1) is false. I think we have knowledge that for a perfect circle C = 2πr. That is knowledge not applied to any real world phenomenon, but it is still knowledge.



On another note:

On July 29 2014 20:42 corumjhaelen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).

I think it probably originates from a proposition at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which said maths proposition were always obiously false or wrong, because maths is just a logic language. Needless to say I think it's as hilarious as his claim about having solved philosophy.


You are correct that this is something out of the Tractatus (for instance in 6.2 he writes that mathematics is a logical method [not sure whether my translation is good, I only have the german Tractatus] 6.234 is similar). In 6.21 he writes that sentences of mathematics do not express thoughts, which I never agreed with, or perhaps never really understood.
corumjhaelen
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
France6884 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-29 13:06:34
July 29 2014 13:05 GMT
#56
I'm behind Prog on everything, and will let him keep on going, he's a better philosopher than I am^^
Also I have a very solid formation in maths (probably better than most physicists), did an engineering school, a project in astrophysics (sucky, but still) so don't worry, I'm quite aware what you're talking about, and I think it doesn't further your argument at all. For me it's just a description of how maths is used by some people, but I don't see how it gives away the nature of maths at all.

And thanks for the check on Wittgesteing Prog, I just quoted it from memory having read it once at least one year ago, so you're certainly more precise than I am. And happy to see I'm not the only one perplex by this...
‎numquam se plus agere quam nihil cum ageret, numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 13:29 GMT
#57
On July 29 2014 21:56 Prog wrote:
It does not matter for the argument that you can use equations for imperfect shapes. The argument just claims that if you think (1), (2) and (3) is true, you have to accept that we have true equations of a perfect circle, which are not knowledge (4). I think the conclusion (4) is implausible and believe that (2) and (3) are certainly true. You yourself just accepted (2) and I guess you also accept (3). Now you either have to accept (4) or discard (1). To accept (4) you must have a very strange notion of knowledge, that I cannot grasp at all.

I believe that (1) is false. I think we have knowledge that for a perfect circle C = 2πr. That is knowledge not applied to any real world phenomenon, but it is still knowledge.

It is not knowledge about the real world. You can call it knowledge of basic mathematics, but to have relevance to the real world (and this is what i was talking about as "knowledge") it has to be modified.

You may call many kinds of "knowledge", but i was and am talking about real world, human nature, phenomenon, etc knowledge. Things that philosophy says it deals with but science actually does. So talking about knowledge of the smurfs or gods or anything else that's not rooted in reality is fine, but not the objective of my post.


On another note:

Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 20:42 corumjhaelen wrote:
On July 29 2014 20:23 Prog wrote:
I highly doubt that mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge. I'd like you to bring sources for such a bold claim. I personally think that a proposition like "The sum of all the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees" is true, is known by us and is a proposition out of the realm of mathematics. [this point was also given by corumjhaelen] Please show how this does not qualify as knowledge (without some scepticist escape route).

I think it probably originates from a proposition at the end of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which said maths proposition were always obiously false or wrong, because maths is just a logic language. Needless to say I think it's as hilarious as his claim about having solved philosophy.


You are correct that this is something out of the Tractatus (for instance in 6.2 he writes that mathematics is a logical method [not sure whether my translation is good, I only have the german Tractatus] 6.234 is similar). In 6.21 he writes that sentences of mathematics do not express thoughts, which I never agreed with, or perhaps never really understood.

What do you, Prog, think mathematics is and does?

To stay relevant to the thread, i ask of anyone that is willing to participate (OP?) what real world knowledge has philosophy brought us in the last 50-100 years? Or if "knowledge" of the real world is to specific, then what kinds of knowledge does modern philosophy bring?
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-07-29 13:43:20
July 29 2014 13:38 GMT
#58
On July 29 2014 22:05 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm behind Prog on everything, and will let him keep on going, he's a better philosopher than I am^^
Also I have a very solid formation in maths (probably better than most physicists), did an engineering school, a project in astrophysics (sucky, but still) so don't worry, I'm quite aware what you're talking about, and I think it doesn't further your argument at all.

You don't have to validate yourself, just write arguments and counter arguments; especially since you have such an impressive background.
EDIT: as in background in mathematics and science, so you can articulate your own opinions in a rational manner without just resorting to quotes and wikipedia pages.

For me it's just a description of how maths is used by some people, but I don't see how it gives away the nature of maths at all.

What is the nature of mathematics?
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prog
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom1470 Posts
July 29 2014 14:13 GMT
#59
I don't know what (the nature of) mathematics is. That's a pretty difficult question. I could not even give a good answer to what (the nature of) philosophy is, even though I studied it the last 7 years. I think it is easier, and maybe even better to just give examples of mathematics, or of philosophy (and I tried to do that). However, my goal was in a sense humble. You said this:

On July 29 2014 19:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:
It's nice that you brought up mathematics, because that is probably the most misunderstood subject ever. You see, mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge.


I thought this is false. And I believe that i gave a good argument why it is false. In this initial statement there was no further qualification to knowledge, so I do not care that the mathematical knowledge I argued for is not about the "real world" (whatever that actually means). It is still knowledge, it is still important to us and while maybe not directly knowledge about the "real world" it is something that helps us understanding our world. Without purely mathematical, abstract knowledge we certainly would not know so much about our world. This mathematical knowledge gives us tools to work with in other sciences.

Now in the next step, if anyone accepts this sort of mathematical knowledge as a tool used in other sciences, what's so different with philosophy as providing something similar? For instance: Inference to the best explanation is something that scientists frequently employ. (Not only sciences, we employ it in our everyday life all the time!) But it is something outside of the realm of the actual science. It is a problem of philosophy. If philosophy can provide a good account of inference to the best explanations it benefits sciences that employ it. This is certainly not a comprehensive account of philosophy, but it captures a lot of what is actually done in philosophy of science. Reflection on sciences to understand how scientific belief formation works and how it should work to produce knowledge reliably.

If philosophy can in some case function as providing tools and frameworks for sciences, then we have a pretty good reason to ascribe instrumental value to it.
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
July 29 2014 14:56 GMT
#60
On July 29 2014 23:13 Prog wrote:
I don't know what (the nature of) mathematics is. That's a pretty difficult question. I could not even give a good answer to what (the nature of) philosophy is, even though I studied it the last 7 years. I think it is easier, and maybe even better to just give examples of mathematics, or of philosophy (and I tried to do that). However, my goal was in a sense humble. You said this:


ha it's ok, i don't know what it is either (seems very philosophical to me :D). The question was addressed at corumjhaelen.

Show nested quote +
On July 29 2014 19:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:
It's nice that you brought up mathematics, because that is probably the most misunderstood subject ever. You see, mathematics does not bring or hold any knowledge.


I thought this is false. And I believe that i gave a good argument why it is false. In this initial statement there was no further qualification to knowledge, so I do not care that the mathematical knowledge I argued for is not about the "real world" (whatever that actually means). It is still knowledge, it is still important to us and while maybe not directly knowledge about the "real world" it is something that helps us understanding our world. Without purely mathematical, abstract knowledge we certainly would not know so much about our world. This mathematical knowledge gives us tools to work with in other sciences.

You are correct, but that sentence was fallowed by a couple of paragraphs that explained it. However, this is where my writing skills are to blame and i can see how it gave the wrong impression.

Now in the next step, if anyone accepts this sort of mathematical knowledge as a tool used in other sciences, what's so different with philosophy as providing something similar?

It depends what it provides and if that "thing" couldn't have been created by the scientist by himself without the need for external influence (from philosophy), lets see.
For instance: Inference to the best explanation is something that scientists frequently employ. (Not only sciences, we employ it in our everyday life all the time!) But it is something outside of the realm of the actual science. It is a problem of philosophy.

A problem of philosophy, but where did it come from? I highly suspect it's as simple as evolutionary deductive thinking. Or in other words, that is simply how our brains evolved to make sense of the environment, predict predators actions, food and weather cycles, etc. The basics of these are found in animals other then humans.

If this is now the study of logic, it is fine and interesting IMO, but you will see that it also creates massive problems since, like i said, it is an evolutionary trend, it is also highly limited.

If philosophy can provide a good account of inference to the best explanations it benefits sciences that employ it. This is certainly not a comprehensive account of philosophy, but it captures a lot of what is actually done in philosophy of science. Reflection on sciences to understand how scientific belief formation works and how it should work to produce knowledge reliably.

If philosophy can in some case function as providing tools and frameworks for sciences, then we have a pretty good reason to ascribe instrumental value to it.

The argument is, like i said in the beginning, was this the result of the study of logic or not. Since it is present in a primitive degree even with animals, i think it's clear "inference" is simply a natural way our brains function. We can get in to evolutionary biology and neuroscience to find out the specifics of this, though logic does have it's merits.

I said there is a massive problem here, and that is that the world as a hole does not function by what our brains deem as "common sense" We evolved to escape tigers and throw rocks, not to understand quantum physics. As a result, much of what we call common sense or what logic tells us, is null when trying to understand how a particle can have no mass and act as a particle and as a wave at the same time; or how can there be particles created from nothing and in less then a fraction of a second disappear back in to nothing; or how a particle can be at 2 places at the same time; etc, etc

Things get so fucked up and mind bending that they can not be understood. Observed yes, calculated yes, tested yes, made in to predictions and then confirmed yes, but never truly understood by anyone because our brains are just limited in imagining and "naturally" deducing at a macro level (the tiger, the rock, etc).
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 5m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PartinGtheBigBoy 431
SortOf 5
StarCraft: Brood War
Zeus 2828
Sea 2271
firebathero 839
TY 335
Larva 236
PianO 196
Killer 101
Shine 65
Aegong 44
Sharp 33
[ Show more ]
Bale 23
soO 19
Sacsri 13
Dota 2
XaKoH 253
League of Legends
JimRising 659
Reynor93
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K976
shoxiejesuss615
ceh9425
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King147
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor169
Other Games
summit1g15041
WinterStarcraft591
C9.Mang0305
Happy68
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 26
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 17
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1799
• HappyZerGling100
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
2h 5m
Monday Night Weeklies
8h 5m
Replay Cast
15h 5m
WardiTV Invitational
1d 3h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 6h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 16h
Replay Cast
2 days
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.